Perhaps the biggest roadblock to Trump’s MAGA agenda has been radical, liberal judges. These men and women, appointed by previous presidents and other powers, have interfered with President Trump’s lawful authority.

But that’s all about to change.

Judges are supposed to be impartial. They have a solemn duty to uphold our laws. Decisions made by judges can decide the fate of not just one person, but millions. Judges that preside over federal issues can very well affect the lives of every last American.

We’ve seen how radical judges can harm our country. Obama-appointed judges have overstepped their bounds by attacking Trump’s lawful executive orders. They have allowed their personal, political views to violate their responsibilities.

Not only that, but certain groups within our government have been appointing judges—without the approval of the president. This is clearly a violation of the Constitution. Thankfully, the Supreme Court felt so too. Now many questionable judges are about to get their walking papers.

From Reuters:

The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday expanded presidential control over pivotal jobs in federal agencies, ruling that the way the Securities and Exchange Commission selected its in-house judges to enforce investor-protection laws was improper.

In a 7-2 ruling, the justices overturned a lower court ruling that had endorsed the SEC’s in-house judge hiring practice that operated autonomously from the president.

The ruling could reverberate through the federal government, which has nearly 2,000 administrative law judges deciding matters as varied as unfair trade practices, veterans benefits and patent infringement. Such a ruling could also make it easier for some of these judges to be fired by political appointees.

Six of the justices said the appointments of the judges were unconstitutional. Liberal Justice Stephen Breyer agreed with the outcome, but said it only violated federal administrative law. Liberal Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor dissented from the decision.

The SEC-appointed judges have long been a controversy. The Commission had the power to appoint their own judges. These judges were overseeing crucial cases that affected private businesses and the investment industry. Clearly, there was a conflict of interest.

It would have been very easy for the SEC to select judges that would only vote in their favor. Or, compromised members of the Commission could have picked judges whose rulings would appease corrupt investment firms. You see the problem?

The President—who has authority to appoint federal judges—was cut out of the loop. He would play a crucial role in deciding if judges should stand or not. Instead, the SEC had free rein. Not anymore.

This ruling can open the door for Trump to reevaluate numerous, questionable judge seats. Judges that are clearly letting their bias get in the way of their job might be in trouble. Trump can allow his cabinet to take stock of sitting judges and decide if they should, in fact, stick around.

Perhaps we’ll see another purge in Washington. Yet more of the swamp drained.

As much as Id love to see biased and agenda driven Judges removed, this will give same authority to the next Obama who will use the power to remove fair and good judges with change agents who will do anything to undermine America. Presidents need more controls as we saw with Obama.

__________________
Frazod to KC Nitwit..."Hey, I saw a picture of some dumpy bitch with a horrible ****tarded giant back tattoo and couldn't help but think of you." Simple, Pure, Perfect. 7/31/2013

Dave Lane: "I have donated more money to people in my life as an atheist that most churches ever will."

As much as Id love to see biased and agenda driven Judges removed, this will give same authority to the next Obama who will use the power to remove fair and good judges with change agents who will do anything to undermine America. Presidents need more controls as we saw with Obama.

Not if you clean house, then pass a law to keep it from happening again.

Not if you clean house, then pass a law to keep it from happening again.

Therin lies the bugaboo.....congress wont pass a bill to clean it up. Too many backroom buddy deals made and administrative judges can quietly allow things to pass through if the right people are in right positions. Plus the R's can't pass shit. Amazing to have the house wrapped up and they cant pass immigration bill because they want to stack it with bullshit...and McConnel wont get rid of the 60 vote rule because its part of the old boy agreements between r and D scum balls.

__________________
Frazod to KC Nitwit..."Hey, I saw a picture of some dumpy bitch with a horrible ****tarded giant back tattoo and couldn't help but think of you." Simple, Pure, Perfect. 7/31/2013

Dave Lane: "I have donated more money to people in my life as an atheist that most churches ever will."

Therin lies the bugaboo.....congress wont pass a bill to clean it up. Too many backroom buddy deals made and administrative judges can quietly allow things to pass through if the right people are in right positions. Plus the R's can't pass shit. Amazing to have the house wrapped up and they cant pass immigration bill because they want to stack it with bullshit...and McConnel wont get rid of the 60 vote rule because its part of the old boy agreements between r and D scum balls.

It's as frustrating as anything I can remember. United they could have been mowing issues down in machine-like fashion over the last year and a half.
Sons of bitches all.

It's as frustrating as anything I can remember. United they could have been mowing issues down in machine-like fashion over the last year and a half.
Sons of bitches all.

I've read that there are congressmen and women who are trying to pass something better and trying to really handle the illegal immigration/border problem—including chain migration, end of birthright citizenship, e-verify and a wall. These congressmen are complaining that it's the leadership that is blocking them from really doing something effective; that they're being denied the right to add amendments by the leadership such as Paul Ryan. Iirc, this is the first time in congress where amendments are being denied. The GOPe or Donor Class are trying to shape it to suit their own purposes by slipping some amnesty through.

I've read about this before during the 90's when there were a lot of freshmen GOP congress folks elected who were gun-ho. The leadership twists their arms, such as Gingrich, deny them memberships on committees unless they toe the line. So some cave-in to get along and not be restricted. The big GOP money, such as Koch money, is going to more congressional candidates that will continue this sort of thing.

I've read that there are congressmen and women who are trying to pass something better and trying to really handle the illegal immigration/border problem—including chain migration, end of birthright citizenship, e-verify and a wall. These congressmen are complaining that it's the leadership that is blocking them from really doing something effective; that they're being denied the right to add amendments by the leadership such as Paul Ryan. Iirc, this is the first time in congress where amendments are being denied. The GOPe or Donor Class are trying to shape it to suit their own purposes by slipping some amnesty through.

I've read about this before during the 90's when there were a lot of freshmen GOP congress folks elected who were gun-ho. The leadership twists their arms, such as Gingrich, deny them memberships on committees unless they toe the line. So some cave-in to get along and not be restricted. The big GOP money, such as Koch money, is going to more congressional candidates that will continue this sort of thing.

This is also going on in the Democratic side of congress too. Schumer and Pelosi have threatened Democrats with having their election campaigns unfunded if they vote for any compromise bill with the Republicans.

O'Reilly also mentions that it's Mexican authorities that are being bribed to go along with this people smuggling movement using organized crime cartels to use poor people to do this. These cartels would cut these poor peoples throats in an instant.

O'Reilly says, and I have to agree, that the GOP also lacks an effective spokesperson on the issue. He does not think Trump is disciplined enough on making the case.

No one of any political leaning should be advocating this. I vote in presidential elections primarily for how I view their take on supreme court nominees, but this is authoritarian as ****.

This isn't about SC nominees but administrative judges within the bureaucratic agencies. From HCF on it's blossomed into a full-scale strawman argument. Don't fall for it. In part because of how the article is written.

This isn't about SC nominees but administrative judges within the bureaucratic agencies. From HCF on it's blossomed into a full-scale strawman argument. Don't fall for it. In part because of how the article is written.

I get that, but the advocacy of firing an entire realm of judiciaries, re-appointing them and then passing a law so it can't be done again is kind of authoritarian. If it was the Supreme Court, it would be unconstitutional.

This isn't about SC nominees but administrative judges within the bureaucratic agencies. From HCF on it's blossomed into a full-scale strawman argument. Don't fall for it. In part because of how the article is written.

You are so full of shit. I never referenced anything other than what the op said, its all administrative judges.

__________________
Frazod to KC Nitwit..."Hey, I saw a picture of some dumpy bitch with a horrible ****tarded giant back tattoo and couldn't help but think of you." Simple, Pure, Perfect. 7/31/2013

Dave Lane: "I have donated more money to people in my life as an atheist that most churches ever will."

As much as Id love to see biased and agenda driven Judges removed, this will give same authority to the next President who will use the power to remove fair and good judges with change agents who will do anything to undermine America. Not quoting finger pointing.